In re H.G. CA3

California Court of Appeal Jul 11, 2024 No. C098886Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying the appellant's third petition for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, as the appellant failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances or new evidence.

Issues

Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion by summarily denying the appellant's section 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing?
Did the appellant establish a prima facie case of changed circumstances or new evidence to warrant a hearing?
Was the juvenile court required to provide new reasons under section 361.3 for denying the petition?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the juvenile court summarily denied appellant’s petition for failure to state new evidence or a change of circumstances, and because the proposed change of order did not promote the best interests of the minors.”

“The summary denial of a previous petition is not a change of circumstance or new evidence.”

“Given appellant’s failure to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances or new evidence, we need not reach the issue of whether she made a prima facie showing of how a change in the minors’ placement would be in their best interests.”

Filed 7/11/24 In re H.G. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

In re H.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C098886 Court Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. AGENCY, STKJVDP20180000407)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

V.V.,

Defendant;

C.S.,

Appellant.

C.S., the subject minors’ maternal aunt, appeals from the juvenile court’s denial of her petition for modification seeking placement of the minors in her home. (Welf. & Inst.

Code, § 388.)1 She claims the juvenile court erred in summarily denying her petition and not considering her for placement of the minors. We shall affirm. I. BACKGROUND We received a limited appellate record in accordance with section 827, consisting of only 51 pages of clerk’s transcript as the record on appeal. Accordingly, portions of our background statement are taken from undisputed statements filed by the parties and the juvenile court’s April 22, 2021, order denying appellant’s first section 388 petition. The subject minors, H.G., T.G., and Ha.G., now ages 16, 13, and 8, respectively, were detained from parental custody on December 12, 2018. They stayed with a maternal cousin for a couple of weeks but were moved on December 28, 2018, to the home of their current caregivers where they have remained. Appellant initially came forward on December 18, 2018, seeking placement of the minors and an out-of-county assessment was sent to Lake County where appellant lives. Appellant applied for approval as a resource family in January 2019 and was approved in April 2019. The San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency), however, reported in August 2019 and again in November 2019 that, despite the approval of her home, appellant had elected to pursue visitation, rather than placement of the minors, at that time. On August 5, 2020, after the 12-month review resulted in continued removal of the minors, appellant filed a section 388 petition for modification seeking placement of the minors. The juvenile court denied the petition on April 22, 2021. In its written order, the juvenile court cited the special needs of the minors and the considerable bond the minors had forged with their current caregivers, with whom they had been placed for over two years, and found changing their placement was not in their best interests. It also concluded, alternatively, that relative placement with appellant pursuant section 361.3

In re H.G. CA3

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

KRAUSE, J.

MESIWALA, J.

AI Brief